New theory of secondary inflation expands options for avoiding an excess of dark matter

A new theory suggests a shorter secondary inflationary period that could account for the amount of dark matter estimated to exist throughout the cosmos. Credit: Brookhaven National Laboratory

Standard cosmology—that is, the Big Bang Theory with its early period of exponential growth known as inflation—is the prevailing scientific model for our universe, in which the entirety of space and time ballooned out from a very hot, very dense point into a homogeneous and ever-expanding vastness. This theory accounts for many of the physical phenomena we observe. But what if that's not all there was to it?

A new theory from physicists at the U.S. Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, and Stony Brook University, which will publish online on January 18 in Physical Review Letters, suggests a shorter secondary inflationary period that could account for the amount of dark matter estimated to exist throughout the cosmos.

"In general, a fundamental theory of nature can explain certain phenomena, but it may not always end up giving you the right amount of dark matter," said Hooman Davoudiasl, group leader in the High-Energy Theory Group at Brookhaven National Laboratory and an author on the paper. "If you come up with too little dark matter, you can suggest another source, but having too much is a problem."

Measuring the amount of dark matter in the universe is no easy task. It is dark after all, so it doesn't interact in any significant way with ordinary matter. Nonetheless, gravitational effects of dark matter give scientists a good idea of how much of it is out there. The best estimates indicate that it makes up about a quarter of the mass-energy budget of the universe, while ordinary matter—which makes up the stars, our planet, and us—comprises just 5 percent. Dark matter is the dominant form of substance in the universe, which leads physicists to devise theories and experiments to explore its properties and understand how it originated.

Hooman Davoudiasl, a physicist at the US Department of Energy'sBrookhaven National Laboratory, along with colleagues from Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, and Stony Brook University, is an author on a new theory in Physical Review Letters, which will publish online on Jan. 18, that suggests a shorter secondary inflationary period that could account for the amount of dark matter estimated to exist throughout the cosmos. Credit: Brookhaven National Laboratory

Some theories that elegantly explain perplexing oddities in physics—for example, the inordinate weakness of gravity compared to other fundamental interactions such as the electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear forces—cannot be fully accepted because they predict more dark matter than empirical observations can support.

This new theory solves that problem. Davoudiasl and his colleagues add a step to the commonly accepted events at the inception of space and time.

In standard cosmology, the exponential expansion of the universe called cosmic inflation began perhaps as early as 10-35 seconds after the beginning of time—that's a decimal point followed by 34 zeros before a 1. This explosive expansion of the entirety of space lasted mere fractions of a fraction of a second, eventually leading to a hot universe, followed by a cooling period that has continued until the present day. Then, when the universe was just seconds to minutes old—that is, cool enough—the formation of the lighter elements began. Between those milestones, there may have been other inflationary interludes, said Davoudiasl.

"They wouldn't have been as grand or as violent as the initial one, but they could account for a dilution of dark matter," he said.

In the beginning, when temperatures soared past billions of degrees in a relatively small volume of space, dark matter particles could run into each other and annihilate upon contact, transferring their energy into standard constituents of matter-particles like electrons and quarks. But as the universe continued to expand and cool, dark matter particles encountered one another far less often, and the annihilation rate couldn't keep up with the expansion rate.

"At this point, the abundance of dark matter is now baked in the cake," said Davoudiasl. "Remember, dark matter interacts very weakly. So, a significant annihilation rate cannot persist at lower temperatures. Self-annihilation of dark matter becomes inefficient quite early, and the amount of dark matter particles is frozen."

However, the weaker the dark matter interactions, that is, the less efficient the annihilation, the higher the final abundance of dark matter particles would be. As experiments place ever more stringent constraints on the strength of dark matter interactions, there are some current theories that end up overestimating the quantity of dark matter in the universe. To bring theory into alignment with observations, Davoudiasl and his colleagues suggest that another inflationary period took place, powered by interactions in a "hidden sector" of physics. This second, milder, period of inflation, characterized by a rapid increase in volume, would dilute primordial particle abundances, potentially leaving the universe with the density of dark matter we observe today.

"It's definitely not the standard cosmology, but you have to accept that the universe may not be governed by things in the standard way that we thought," he said. "But we didn't need to construct something complicated. We show how a simple model can achieve this short amount of inflation in the early universe and account for the amount of dark matter we believe is out there."

Proving the theory is another thing entirely. Davoudiasl said there may be a way to look for at least the very feeblest of interactions between the hidden sector and ordinary matter.

"If this secondary inflationary period happened, it could be characterized by energies within the reach of experiments at accelerators such as the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) and the Large Hadron Collider," he said. Only time will tell if signs of a hidden sector show up in collisions within these colliders, or in other experimental facilities.

Citation:
New theory of secondary inflation expands options for avoiding an excess of dark matter (2016, January 14)
retrieved 15 September 2019
from https://phys.org/news/2016-01-theory-secondary-inflation-options-excess.html

This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no
part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

User comments

Interesting how at inflation Baryonic & Dark Matter was all mixed up & then managed to segregate & coalesce into envelopes surrounding only Spiral Galaxies, this according to Zwicky the godfather of DM. Why does this guy imagine he is so much smarter than Zwicky?

Interesting how at inflation Baryonic & Dark Matter was all mixed up & then managed to segregate & coalesce into envelopes surrounding only Spiral Galaxies, this according to Zwicky the godfather of DM. Why does this guy imagine he is so much smarter than Zwicky?

You have an unhealthy habit making feeble disparaging claims of other people's intellect that, unlike you, go to trouble writing papers as proper part of the process yet, you cannot *ever* support your claims with *any* Physics & Nil convergence :-(

Earlier you disparage Zwicky re 2nd law of thermodynamics (why?) & Now disparage "this guy" as thinking he's smarter, why worry at all what people imagine ?

You have an unhealthy habit making feeble disparaging claims of other people's intellect that, unlike you, go to trouble writing papers as proper part of the process yet, you cannot *ever* support your claims with *any* Physics & Nil convergence

More Mutterances by Mike: Hey, I don't look in a mirror & imagine 80% of me is "missing", which is the reason why Zwicky at least had the presence of mind to keep his Cosmic Fairy Dust in Envelopes on the outside of Spiral Galaxies.

Interesting how at inflation Baryonic & Dark Matter was all mixed up & then managed to segregate & coalesce into envelopes surrounding only Spiral Galaxies, this according to Zwicky the godfather of DM. Why does this guy imagine he is so much smarter than Zwicky?

What if dark matter was just an up and down quark PAIR... Not quite protonic...:-)Oh... and what if - they were pulled in by varying space/time fluctuations caused BY the rotating galaxy... Hmmmm?

1. We assume that the same amount of mass generates the same amount of gravity wherever it is located in the universe. This is supported by observation of all individual stellar objects we can see without exception.

2. Yet at very large scales we observe motion that shows there's too much gravity.

3. So the simplest avenue of investigation is that there is other matter we can't see yet (dark matter).

How is that not reasonable?

Aren't you just replacing "imaginary matter" with imaginary gravity? How is that better in any way?

2 Einstein's Field equations went further than Newton & proved correction re Mercury.

Paradigm re Dark Matter (DM) is virtually identical & at huge scale although we aren't there to assess detail, in any case we're looking back in time. Therefore DM mere placeholder for observed pattern - this doesn't invalidate Relativity, as some claim, likely it merely adds correction in a similar vein as Einstein's equations added correction to Newton's gravitation

And neither Newton's nor Einstein's models require any dark matter in this solar system and we have detected none in this system. Yet the claim is that there should be more dark matter in our solar system than all the normal matter combined.

Dark matter was simply created (imagined) when we noticed that suns in spiral galaxies were moving faster than our models of gravity allowed. By our models, those suns should be flung out of their galaxies. Instead of trying to determine why our models failed to match our observations, dark matter was created to normalize our models. The imaginary nature of dark matter is evident in that there is always just enough in just the right places to account for the observation. Since we don't need any in our solar system, we just have to imagine that something cleared all of it out of here.

Aren't you just replacing "imaginary matter" with imaginary gravity? How is that better in any way?

I am not replacing imaginary matter with anything. I am merely pointing out that dark matter was simply made up when our observations did not match our models. I seems that the scientific method would lead us to try to discover why our observations do not match our models rather than simply creating huge amounts of invisible matter.

But it is easier to believe in imaginary matter which is so accommodating that it exists in just the right amounts in just the right places to account for whatever we see. However, in over 70 years, we have failed utterly in finding a single particle of it.

1. We assume that the same amount of mass generates the same amount of gravity wherever it is located in the universe. This is supported by observation of all individual stellar objects we can see without exception.

.... So then how was Einstein able to derive the calculations for gravitational lensing of starlight as it passed the peripheral disc of the sun based on his Field Equations which do not include 80% missing mass? " Without exception" huh?

2. Yet at very large scales we observe motion that shows there's too much gravity

What motion? The Rotation Rate of Spiral Galaxies which constitutes only 1/3 the mass of the Universe?

3. So the simplest avenue of investigation is that there is other matter we can't see yet (dark matter).

How is that not reasonable?

Because when I look in a mirror, I don't believe 80% of me is "missing".

..neither Newton's nor Einstein's models require any dark matter in this solar system and we have detected none in this system

Not issue of 'requirement', if not 'properly' observed at local scale doesn't mean not at galactic scale, until we are "there" with keen instrumentation, sensible use relevant investigative process cognisant of Algebra ie Proverbial missing 'x' term !

dogbert claims

Yet the claim is that there should be more dark matter in our solar system than all the normal matter combined

Where, no credible astronomer would claim it has to be here - as (local) date & re math don't show evidence !

dogbert claims

Dark matter was simply created (imagined) when we noticed that suns in spiral galaxies were moving faster than our models of gravity allowed

Not issue of 'requirement', if not 'properly' observed at local scale doesn't mean not at galactic scale, until we are "there" with keen instrumentation, sensible use relevant investigative process cognisant of Algebra ie Proverbial missing 'x' term

Where, no credible astronomer would claim it has to be here - as (local) date & re math don't show evidence

So then how was Einstein able to derive the calculations for gravitational lensing of starlight as it passed the peripheral disc of the sun based on his Field Equations which do not include 80% missing mass?

Avoiding temptation to embarrass you further re your other questions, please take earnest advice, at the least, watch the lecture series by L.Susskind, start with lecture 1.

NB: The fact you ask lame questions & with tone of derision goes to prove you have never come across Gauss - upon which Einstein's field equations are soundly based & you *should* know Gauss really well as you claimed to be an "Electrical Engineer" !

Will it ever be possible for you to write a sentence without all these kinds of convoluted ramblings which never make any sense?

Benni, you again show immense childish impatience & just cannot comprehend language essentials & their utility which you *should* have been exposed to had you really achieved a university degree in Electrical Engineering !

Benni, show us how mature/smart you are & converge, start with my sentence 1. & exercise those wee brain cells to infer its meaning & yes I know I don't write in sound bites the media use to talk down to 15yr olds, you should be beyond that & especially so if you really had a university degree as it requires; discipline, intellect, maths, patience & willingness to converge on salient Maths points relevant to the dialectic process

Perhaps you're telling us unconsciously you're a waste of time, I hope not, so upon reflection, watch lectures first

..Finally,and I really do mean FINALLY, finally I've figured out your intransigent Dark Matter stance.......you look in a mirror & wish that 80% of what you see were not there

Such distasteful comments & unwillingness to articulate your position and resort to personal attacks is not worthy of anyone who has gone through the work ethic & effort in gaining university qualifications - especially the two you claim ie Electrical & Nuclear Engineering.

Get yourself organised, smarter to focus on the Physics & essential Math woven in, even though its clear you have Nil university based credentials as you claim you show interest in Electronic/Electrical - maybe just in PCB design, it doesnt matter, if that were really the case & you are not here to waste everyone's time then, at least, get a grasp of Gauss theorems, they are nowhere as difficult as they might appear & relate well to Maxwell., can you please ?

"Often the toughest task for leaders in effecting change is mobilizing people throughout the organization to do adaptive work. Adaptive work is required when our deeply held beliefs are challenged, when the values that made us successful become less relevant, and when legitimate yet competing perspectives emerge ..."

"MANY MANAGERS TREAT ADAPTIVE CHALLENGES AS IF THEY WERE TECHNICAL PROBLEMS."

"many, if not most, of the change challenges you face today and will face tomorrow require something more than incorporating new technical skills into your current mindset. These are the 'adaptive challenges,' and they can only be met by transforming your mindset, by advancing to a more sophisticated stage of mental development."

The existence of large amounts of matter we cannot see (dark matte) are inferred from gravitational effects we observe on visible matter. Without such invisible matter, according to our current best understanding of how gravity works, each spiral galaxies should be flying apart; and yet we clearly observe they are not.

That doesn't necessarily mean dark matter exists because we cannot yet rule out the possibility that there is something wrong with our current understanding of gravity when operating over very large distances.

However, we, and that includes you, do not yet have a compelling theory supported by good evidence of how our current understanding of gravity could be so wrong assuming that it is. Therefore, until if and when we (or you) DO have such an alternative credible theory to dark matter, you cannot dismiss dark mater theory as being unreasonable. Simply stating that dark matter is "imaginary" doesn't make it so -please state your premise and inference.

I look at these theories and as much as they answer some interesting things. The moment I see "10-35 seconds after the beginning of time" or the like I have to wonder what theory of physics they are working from. A point source as exists at the big bang would have no effective time and would maintain that condition until the energy matter balance exceeded the chandrasekhar limit and even measuring the flow of time after that would be problematic without an accurate measure of starting mass, ignoring the minor issue of how fast time is running in this expansion.

Of course we could have more phase changes, but adding degrees of freedoms without gaining much is not likelu useful. In this case, the gain is theoretical, allowing more than "some theories" to estimate the DM mass. The standard cosmology doesn't have that problem.

@trevor: "The moment I see "10-35 seconds after the beginning of time" or the like I have to wonder what theory of physics they are working from. A point source as exists at the big bang would have no effective time ..."

They are looking at the expansion at early times, guided by the sum of data. The description of cosmology has some problems, "Big Bang" can be defined in many ways and our data can only guarantee a minimum of expansion that is seen. That the expansion started from a singularity is to use a peculiar constraint, and the observed theory implies an indefinite exponential expansion.

[ctd] The "10^-35 seconds after the beginning of time" is an estimate using the lowest expansion amount and using the singularity (rather, a Planck time after, at a guess) as a constraint of "beginning".

It is better to define the Hot Big Bang era as the end of inflation, and acknowledge that inflation extends and modifies earlier Big Bang cosmology.

[But FWIW the latest Planck data release has model free fits to the data that show that the inflation potential runs up against a finite expansion. Still, our universe could be a late one among the many that inflation spawned, the definite expansion amount is still too unconstrained.]

As usual there are comments that doesn't even touch the subject, and some that troll from a position of misunderstandings. FWIW on the latter:

@Benni: "envelopes surrounding only Spiral Galaxies, this according to Zwicky".

A strawman that has nothing to do with modern cosmology. DM is observed in many ways, and its distribution in large galaxies is understood. It is large subject for small comments, so I'll point to Wikipedia on cosmology for starters. [Then see the Planck legacy archives for all the latest observations. It is a *massive amount* of non-Zwicky, non-spiral observations!]

@dogbert: "Once you create imaginary matter to explain".

Good thing that no one is doing that, and nowhere in the article can you find such a reference.

On the other hand there are those that tries to create "imaginary matter" out of observed matter... [See the Planck legacy archives for all the latest observations. It is a *massive amount* of observations of "non-imaginary" matter!]

. A point source as exists at the big bang would have no effective time and would maintain that condition until the energy matter balance exceeded the chandrasekhar limit and even measuring the flow of time after that would be problematic without an accurate measure of starting mass, ignoring the minor issue of how fast time is running in this expansion.

Couple of misconceptions in this: - Matter did not gel out of the early state till after inflation- Chamdrasekar limit is only relevant to matter (see first point)- spacetime (and more specifically spacetime expansion) is not subject to the speed of light limit.

Rather than adding an inflationary variable during the isothermal epoch of Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN), when hydrogen fusion was in thermal equilibrium with photodisintegration, I suggest isothermal gravitational collapse into proto-spiral-galaxies, complete with supermassive black holes.

Deuterium burning in the cores of protostars is a regulating reaction that always occurs at 1 million Kelvins in the cores of brown dwarfs and in OB supergiants, and I suggest BBN is a similar regulating reaction which clamps the temperature, pressure, baryon-to-photon ratio, and the local baryon density, guaranteeing a canonical D/H ratio, allowing for baryonic dark matter.

Then DM in today's universe would merely be dark clouds of molecular hydrogen with its luminous stellar metallicity sequestered into the solid state of icy chondrules. So if DM converts to stars and luminous gas in globular clusters and galactic cores then the 'cuspy halo problem' was merely a ΛCDM construct.

each spiral galaxies should be flying apart; and yet we clearly observe they are not.

So what, Spirals only make up 1/3 of the mass of the Universe.

That doesn't necessarily mean dark matter exists because we cannot yet rule out the possibility that there is something wrong with our current understanding of gravity

You mean with YOUR "current understanding", not mine, I can do some real simple math & conclude that it is not possible to cram 80% of the mass of the Universe into Spiral structures that compose only 1/3 of it's total mass.

compelling theory supported by good evidence of how our current understanding of gravity could be so wrong . When we DO have such an alternative credible theory to dark matter, you cannot dismiss dark mater theory as being unreasonable

You imagine there needs to be "an alternative" because it is beyond your comprehension that it is impossible to cram 80% of the mass of the Universe into 1/3 of it's mass.

"Measuring the amount of dark matter in the universe is no easy task. "

Of course is not easy task. Even more. It is impossible to measure the parameters of a non existent objects. But after DM investigators receive regularly wages, can continue until retirement this pointless quest. Тhe proud will never know the truth.

"In the beginning, when temperatures soared past billions of degrees in a relatively small volume of space, dark matter particles could run into each other and annihilate upon contact, transferring their energy into standard constituents of matter-particles like electrons and quarks. But as the universe continued to expand and cool, dark matter particles encountered one another far less often, and the annihilation rate couldn't keep up with the expansion rate."

So the big bang theorists claim that gravity cause the formation of the cosmic structure despite that the particle density in a given volume was not enough to stop the fictional expansion of the universe and to support the same annihilation rate in the fictional early period of the universe according to their fantasies.

each spiral galaxies should be flying apart; and yet we clearly observe they are not.

So what, Spirals only make up 1/3 of the mass of the Universe.

Benni:

what has what proportion of mass spirals make up of the total mass of the universe got to do with the fact that, unless our theory of gravity is wrong over very long distance, we need dark matter to account for why spiral galaxies, as we observe them rotate the way they do, don't fly apart?Your comment here is irrelevant to what I just said.

That doesn't necessarily mean dark matter exists because we cannot yet rule out the possibility that there is something wrong with our current understanding of gravity

You mean with YOUR "current understanding", not mine,

Benni:

No. I mean the general current understanding of how gravity works which is exactly the same as that of general relativity. If your current understanding of how gravity works is not the same as mine then that means you reject general relativity. Do you?

I can do some real simple math & conclude that it is not possible to cram 80% of the mass of the Universe into Spiral structures that compose only 1/3 of it's total mass.

Benni:

strawman;

Who said/implied 80% of the mass of the Universe is in "Spiral structures"? Not me nor anyone else here.please pay close attention to what is actually said.How is saying that without dark matter spiral galaxies would fly apart imply that spiral galaxies, NOT dark matter, makes up 80% of the mass of the universe!? clearly it doesn't.

the law of gravity according to general relativity + certain astronomical observations implies dark matter.For there to be no dark matter, either those observations must be somehow wrong/illusory (how?) or the law of gravity according to general relativity doesn't hold true over very 'large' distances (I assume that is logically possible, but currently that is at least as assumptive as dark matter theory if not more so)

" the law of gravity according to general relativity (and also according to Newtonian physics but I say "according to general relativity" because general relativity gives a more accurate disruption of gravity) ... (same as before)..."

OK, lets try to recapitulate this: the Universe exploded during Big Bang, then suddenly stopped, after then it inflated and suddenly stopped (first inflation), after then it inflated and suddenly stopped again (2nd inflation) and now it expands with increasing speed again. All this occurred spontaneously, because this is what every normal Universe does.. Did I understand it correctly?

The universe never stopped expanding. And the universe never exploded -the rapid expansion of the universe is not an explosion but rather due to space itself expanding. An 'explosion' is a result of something violently moving through space away from a central point, not space itself expanding between that something! Note the universe isn't expanding away from a central point because there is no central point to the universe!

"Measuring the amount of dark matter in the universe is no easy task. "

Of course is not easy task. Even more. It is impossible to measure the parameters of a non existent objects. But after DM investigators receive regularly wages, can continue until retirement this pointless quest. Тhe proud will never know the truth.

It is not as difficult as pleasing your nonexistent god, but still the pastors and priests get their wages in their pointless quest.

And neither Newton's nor Einstein's models require any dark matter in this solar system and we have detected none in this system. Yet the claim is that there should be more dark matter in our solar system than all the normal matter combined.

Nobody claims that, dogbrain. you just misunderstood. unfortunately, you also don't understand that you don't understand. you are an information black hole.

I predict that here the same will happen as on other threads.More and more cranks will emit more and more nonsense until a critical point is reached.The hypercritical crap collapses onto itself into fathomless nothingness. All information entering within its horizon is destroyed. An expanding Crap Nebula is testimony that a catastrophe has occurred.

No. I mean the general current understanding of how gravity works which is exactly the same as that of general relativity. If your current understanding of how gravity works is not the same as mine then that means you reject general relativity. Do you?

The Einstein Field Equations that Einstein used in deriving his calculations for gravitational lensing as starlight passes the peripheral disk of the sun in General Relativity are in fact not what you believe, in spite of your claims to "understanding" GR better than I do.

According to your DM Narratives, the Einstein Field Equations missed so much gravity by his overlooking so called missing 80% mass of the Sun that his calculations for gravitational lensing should never have worked, but they did. So back up your braggadocio about how much more you imagine you know about GR than I do, and explain why you know more than Einstein.

How is saying that without dark matter spiral galaxies would fly apart imply that spiral galaxies, NOT dark matter, makes up 80% of the mass of the universe!? clearly it doesn't.

Problem seems to be that DM is NOT matter, only entropic gravity resulting from BB turbulence. So now we can talk intelligently about the matter content of spiral vs elliptical galaxies, or whatever leftovers there might be out there in intergalactic space.

For there to be no dark matter, either those observations must be somehow wrong/illusory (how?) or the law of gravity according to general relativity doesn't hold true over very 'large' distances (I assume that is logically possible, but currently that is at least as assumptive as dark matter theory if not more so)

GR employs what they call an energy-momentum tensor. Entropic gravity, when it extends over large distances, drives this tensor as well as over short distances. So there is no conflict between GR and entropic gravity, or what unfortunately most people call DM.

Of course, we experienced this situation already with epicyclic model of solar system: the planets did funny movements in this model, in completely unphysical way - but it wasn't sufficient to reject this model, until it provided correct agreement with at least some observations (being actually systematically fitted to these observations in fact).

The model was rejected in favour of a better one (that had already been around for 2000 years). I don't know of an alternative, let alone better model now. I do not exclude that a better model is possible.

Note the universe isn't expanding away from a central point because there is no central point to the universe!

For example, what is the central point on the surface of a balloon?

Exactly except no analogy is perfect, and, unlike with a balloon that has a central point within the 3D volume under its 2D surface for its central point to be in, the universe has no 4D volume 'underneath' its 3D 'surface' for a central point to be in. This is impossible for us to picture because none of us can picture in 4D. It is like a balloon except there is no space within it even though is impossible for us to visualize having a blown up balloon with no space within it!!3D space has 4D curvature without being curved within 4D volume!

I never mentioned Einstein let alone claimed I know more than him. I merely mentioned I know relativity and didn't even claim/imply some kind of 'superior' understanding of it like you make out. Here seems to be just part of the source of your confusion:

Relativity ≠ Einstein

Therefore saying I know relativity doesn't imply I know more than Einstein.

I never mentioned Einstein let alone claimed I know more than him. I merely mentioned I know relativity and didn't even claim/imply some kind of 'superior' understanding of it like you make out. Here seems to be just part of the source of your confusion:

Relativity ≠ Einstein

Therefore saying I know relativity doesn't imply I know more than Einstein.

When science-literate people say they "believe X (e.g. relativity) is correct" it's always with the uspoken rider "...until someone comes up with something better"

Note that this is different from saying "...until someone shows up a problem with X". We all KNOW there's a problem there. (e.g. QM doesn't mesh well with Relativity so something is wrong - or at the very least not complete).

But until and unless someone comes up with something BETTER that's the theories we'll use.

The alternative would be to stop using them - which would stop science. Forever. Because you will NEVER come up with a theory that doesn't have any issues right off the bat.And a theory can be very good within its context (note how Newtonian gravity was shown wrong by Relativity, but it is still usefull for a wide variety of applications).

That something isn't 100% correct doesn't mean it's bad to use it - especially if nothing better is at hand.

According to your DM Narratives, the Einstein Field Equations missed so much gravity by his overlooking so called missing 80% mass of the Sun that his calculations for gravitational lensing should never have worked, but they did

Hmmm, can you articulate the full logical position from your perspective in the same clear language & concise way humy did so well ~50mins ago, that would be Great Benni ?

Along with that please note my post to you re lab experience & finding the missing reactances, did you do *any* of these in your uni training in "Electrical Engineering" ?

Benni with personal attacks

So back up your braggadocio about how much more you imagine you know about GR than I do, and explain why you know more than Einstein

Ugh, every-time you do this you confirm immense self-esteem/insecurity issues !

Why can't you focus on the Physics/Math why do you *have* to show yourself up & litter the forums with personal attacks, are you very ill ?

I never mentioned Einstein let alone claimed I know more than him. I merely mentioned I know relativity and didn't even claim/imply some kind of 'superior' understanding of it like you make out. Here seems to be just part of the source of your confusion:

Relativity ≠ Einstein

Therefore saying I know relativity doesn't imply I know more than Einstein.

Math says that Benni must have 3 sock puppets in the voting system.Who else would vote him 5 stars but he himself

Indeed !

Also likely that either he or his 'cousin' bschott also having a personal attack & made a nick close to mine to muddy the waters !ie https://sciencex...._Masson/

Which is *not* me by any circumstances, in any case pointless to use votes for anything other than basic flag function, its clear to the good thinkers around here that understand formalism of Physics & Science or example, that votes mean nothing & making socks wastes time

That something isn't 100% correct doesn't mean it's bad to use it - especially if nothing better is at hand

The same can be applied to dense aether model analogies like the water surface: they're not perfect, yet they represent at least some intuitive explanation of what we can observe around us.

You missed part of my post. I said: if there's something better: use that. Notice how we have something better than aether theory (well...everything is better than aether theory, really). There is no sense whatsoever (besides a psychological need for cuddly fuddly wishy washy fantasy) to use aether theory.

To spell it out: Aether theory is a spectacularly BAD idea to use, because it just helps you get everything vastly more wrong than with other theories.

Notice how we have something better than aether theory (well...everything is better than aether theory, really). There is no sense whatsoever (besides a psychological need for cuddly fuddly wishy washy fantasy) to use aether theory.

To spell it out: Aether theory is a spectacularly BAD idea to use, because it just helps you get everything vastly more wrong than with other theories.

So, let us get this straight: Your godfather of the DM nut theory succinctly states in his hypothesis that his Cosmic Fairy Dust would be found ONLY in ENVELOPES surrounding SPIRAL GALAXIES. You've been sucked into the notion that DM makes up 80% of the mass of the Universe.

Now, put your vaunted math skills to work here, and explain how you DM Enthusiasts cram 80% of the mass of the Universe into a mass of the Universe already KNOWN to contain only 1/3 of its mass in the form of Spiral Galaxies.......... 80/33= 2.42 times more mass than Zwicky's hypothesis to accommodate it.

So, let us get this straight: Your godfather of the DM nut theory succinctly states in his hypothesis that his Cosmic Fairy Dust would ...

Now, put your vaunted math skills to work here, and explain how you DM Enthusiasts cram...

Benni

So you respond to concise explanation and reason not with any intelligent reason but rather with hateful condescending unintelligent personal attacks? What do you think this tells us of your character? And how do you think anyone here will be persuaded by anything you assert with such personal attacks? Or what do you hope to achieve from doing this?

Now, put your vaunted math skills to work here, and explain how you DM Enthusiasts cram...

Benni

So you respond to concise explanation and reason not with any intelligent reason but rather with hateful condescending unintelligent personal attacks?

.......80/33=2.42 is more "concise" than anything you've come up with so far. It would be real interesting to see your math for placing 2.42 gallons of water into a 1 gallon container. Show us that math?

What do you think this tells us of your character?

I can follow all the math in Einstein's calculations for gravitational deflection of photons in his GR, this has nothing to do with "character". You confuse my math skills with character due to the void that exists in your mind for explaining Zwicky's hypothesis versus the 80% missing mass conundrum.

And how do you think anyone here will be persuaded by anything you assert with such personal attacks?

"...Your godfather of the DM nut theory succinctly states in his hypothesis that his Cosmic Fairy Dust would..."

is a personal attack.

I should add:

It is a personal attack for it OBVIOUSLY implies he (antialias_physorg) is a "nut" for believing it.

I should also point out that many of the greatest scientific mind with far greater intelligence than you or I concluded, rightly or wrongly, that dark matter exists. That doesn't mean dark matter exists but it is an indicator that our default assumption should be that, until you (or I) validly shows something wrong with the theory, which you so far haven't, it is a valid scientific theory (thus not a "nut theory" as you assert here)

+ where did I imply you were a "psycho" or support such a label? FACT: It wasn't me who said it.

I just think DM is the best hypothesis currently out there. That's all.

Do I think it's a foregone conclusion that DM is the answer? No.Do I think it's a sensible hypothesis? Yes (for the simple reason that we see things that have an effect that - to our current (testable!) knowledge - only gravity has. And the only thing that we know of that causes gravity is something that has mass.

The interesting thing (and what sets it apart from most all other proposed theories is): Going from the above observation and assumption we can make predictions (DM distribution, interaction models, etc.) and check them. If the predictions fail the model fails (note that there isn't just one DM model, There are several. Some of which have already been excluded by this process)

What allmost all other theories do is make either an infinite number of possible predictions (not useful because not falsifiable) or no predictions at all (which is about as useful as saying: "stuff exists/happens").

It's a "nut theory" to imagine that 80% of the Universe can be contained within 1/3 of the mass of the Universe as the the present day DM Enthusiasts.

Your biggest problem is that you have yet to study Zwicky's hypothesis on DM. Or maybe you have, & you see the obvious disparities between his "envelopes of DM around Spiral Galaxies" versus the present day pop-sci that has created a conundrum gap with the 80% missing mass of the entire Universe.

Zwicky knew Einstein in case you didn't know that. And because Zwicky was well aware of Einstein's photon deflection calculations in GR, Zwicky knew he needed to keep his DM well beyond the orbit of our Sun within our Spiral Galaxy, because he knew he'd run into conflict with Einstein's Field Equations in his calculation for the mass of the Sun & his calculations for photon deflection.

It is like a balloon except there is no space within it even though is impossible for us to visualize having a blown up balloon with no space within it!!

The surface area we inhabit receives light from billions of years ago when the universe was much smaller. So we are looking back at a much smaller visible universe which actually doesn't exist anymore.

Now, put your vaunted math skills to work here, and explain how you DM Enthusiasts cram 80% of the mass of the Universe into a mass of the Universe already KNOWN to contain only 1/3 of its mass in the form of Spiral Galaxies.......... 80/33= 2.42 times more mass than Zwicky's hypothesis to accommodate it.

And the only thing that we know of that causes gravity is something that has mass.

Hate to waist your time with pet theories, but it works for me. The reason mass causes gravity is it displaces the vacuum pressure, or dark energy, causing a gradient in this pressure. More dark energy pressure from the vacuum, less from inside the earth. However there are many greater gradients in the vacuum pressure than this, which accounts for most of the 80% people are talking about.

According to your DM Narratives, the Einstein Field Equations missed so much gravity by his overlooking so called missing 80% mass of the Sun that his calculations for gravitational lensing should never have worked, but they did.

Einstein missed 80% of the mass of the sun? He must have really been lucky.

Well, it's his three sockpuppets (Mike_Masson. GoshURStupid and iamsmarterthanyou)...the typical no-post wonders all registered within a short while of each other.

Nah Benni. You ain't smarter than anyone. You're just dumb as rocks if you have to get imaginary friends to vote you up (and others down). Ya think anyone would fall for that? If you really do - then you're more stupid than anyone can possibly imagine.

Pick up your game or get out (or get reported). Your choice. The sockpuppeting is on record.

the Einstein Field Equations missed so much gravity by his overlooking so called missing 80% mass of the Sun

The shear nonsense of it. But look at the score, 3.4 out of 5 ratings.That is 3x5+2*1. The 3*5 is from Benni's sockpuppets, since he can't vote with "Benni" on his own posts.We all like appreciation, that's vanity. But this ? What is the diagnosis here ?

So Benni you have been unmasked as a pathetic fraud.Repent and better your life, to the benefit of all notably yourself !Or will you continue this pathetic charade and live without dignity ?You have a choice.

AND Benni, at the least, identify the assumptions re your comment re 80%, its sensible to clearly articulate the assumptions in *any* scientific endeavour, ie Its part of training you *should* have received in your claimed uni degree in "Electrical Engineering", why didnt you ?

Well, it's his three sockpuppets (Mike_Masson. GoshURStupid and iamsmarterthanyou)...the typical no-post wonders all registered within a short while of each other

Indeed & betrays an emotional vindictive pattern too with the classic selective behaviour to distract, that & Benni/bschott's immense inability to articulate their own position is almost icing on the cake proving not just incompetence but, immense insecurity !

antialias_physorg suggested

Pick up your game or get out (or get reported). Your choice. The sockpuppeting is on record

Damn right, seconded :-)

Now, if Benni/bschott & their gang could actually further their particular view with a smidgen of maths or even basic rationale we might get somewhere...

Instead Benni/bschott litter the forums & play sloppily, ie First proposes Zwicky & mixes in 2nd law of thermodynamics then backs away when challenged then claims others favour Zwicky to criticize

antialias_physorg\Couple of misconceptions in this: - Matter did not gel out of the early state till after inflation- Chamdrasekar limit is only relevant to matter (see first point)

Assuming the origin of the universe formed from energy, at the point of matter formation and up until the matter had expanded beyond the Chamdrasekar limit there would be no effective time. The assumption that the matter formed instantly throughout the early universe, not withstanding, there would still be a period where time moved at an unknown pace until it had moved beyond that limit significantly.

- spacetime (and more specifically spacetime expansion) is not subject to the speed of light limit.

the expansion of space time creates it's own limits which have nothing to do with time and to quote the speed of light which obviously relates to a baryonic universal state is simply just miss direction as the 2 do not relate

Benni. You ain't smarter than anyone. You're just dumb as rocks if you have to get imaginary friends to vote you up (and others down). Ya think anyone would fall for that? If you really do then you're more stupid than anyone can possibly imagine.

.....coming from someone whose education is a degree in Biology versus mine in Nuclear/Electrical Engineering.

anti_physics, I can design a nuclear reactor.......what can you do beyond autopsy on cadavers with your degree in Human Biology? It's such great entertainment watching you flip into the usual foul mouthed name calling routines after you & your vote brigade have run out of cliches.

Cliched narratives is all Zwicky's Cosmic Fairy Dust narrative has ever been about & the same is what the ludicrous current Pop-Sci Narrative of the 80% Missing Matter narrative is about.

If the math isn't beyond you, give up the name calling routine & spend some time studying the GR section on photon deflection & weep some more.

the Einstein Field Equations missed so much gravity by his overlooking so called missing 80% mass of the Sun

The shear nonsense of it. But look at the score, 3.4 out of 5 ratings.That is 3x5+2*1. The 3*5 is from Benni's sockpuppets, since he can't vote with "Benni" on his own posts.We all like appreciation, that's vanity. But this ? What is the diagnosis here ?

so Skippy has a question , assuming 'inflation' is not just like an explosion ,what is filling the spaces between matter ,. Dark matter ? so is dark matter density decreasing ? or where does more originate.I suspect we can barely scratch the surface of what we need to know.

Anyhow the vacuum pressure can be shown with Casimir force - and that isn't in the same ballpark as gravity magnitude-wise.

So dark energy must be more than just the vacuum pressure. I was thinking of vacuum pressure as entropy of the dark energy.

Similar problem discussed at http://www.math.c...?p=5327, QFT predicts a huge vacuum energy, whereas measurements show that it is small. So with gravity we may be looking more at QFT (quantum field theory, I suppose).

LOL, So link I supplied you for Susskind's lecture useful to you then, why don't you go beyond his approximation to a precise DE ?

As I've told you in the recent past, I NEVER click on anything for which you create a link. Furthermore, I don't care what Susskind the plumber has to say about anything, I fully comprehend Einstein's SR & GR and don't need much else on which to base my professional endeavors in science.

.what can you do beyond autopsy on cadavers with your degree in Human Biology?

I have a lot of interests in scientific subjects (some people have "food porn". Others have "porn porn". I like "science porn") I like to go in depth where I can. The degree doesn't limit me in that way. I have a masters in EE along with the degree,. But even at uni I was spending a lot of time also going to other lectures (philosophy, psychology, physics, ... ) I like to think I used that time as well as I could to cram as much pan-subject understanding as possible. It's amazing how many things are intimately connected by stuff like statistics, information theory, game theory, ...

Grad school did give me the tools to know how to go in depth on a subject in a reasonable amount of time. It also gave me the experience how to delineate good science from crank stuff.

But yeah: your sockpuppet attack speaks for itself. Back on ignore you go..

LOL, So link I supplied you for Susskind's lecture useful to you then, why don't you go beyond his approximation to a precise DE ?

As I've told you in the recent past, I NEVER click on anything for which you create a link. Furthermore, I don't care what Susskind the plumber has to say about anything, I fully comprehend Einstein's SR & GR and don't need much else on which to base my professional endeavors in science.

You float in splendid omniscient isolation together with your sockpuppets, clicking away at the stars. Ummmmmm ....

I have a masters in EE along with the degree,. But even at uni I was spending a lot of time also going to other lectures (philosophy, psychology, physics, ... )

Muttering Mike should demand you prove it in face of the many gaffes in which I've caught you when you wander into subject material involving Electrical Engineering.

Your many gaffes carry so many tones of someone who failed a transition from a Biology curriculum into a REAL SCIENCE curriculum & found yourself way over your head & flunked out. When an undergrad, I saw many Pre-Med students try to make the transition into Engineering, the failure rate was just about 100%. With your many gaffe prone responses in my field of professional endeavor it's clear your resume exceeds even the inflation of the subject material under discussion.

I have a masters in EE along with the degree,. But even at uni I was spending a lot of time also going to other lectures (philosophy, psychology, physics, ... )

Muttering Mike should demand you prove it in face of the many gaffes in which I've caught you when you wander into subject material involving Electrical Engineering.

Your many gaffes carry so many tones of someone who failed a transition from a Biology curriculum into a REAL SCIENCE curriculum & found yourself way over your head & flunked out. When an undergrad, I saw many Pre-Med students try to make the transition into Engineering, the failure rate was just about 100%. With your many gaffe prone responses in my field of professional endeavor it's clear your resume exceeds even the inflation of the subject material under discussion.

That is boring. Rather, tell us all what Einstein is doing at this moment.

When problems keep bringing other problems, then the math is bad to begin with, and this is the only logical reason as to why "dark matter" had to be invented in the first place.

So now, anyone who was enamored of the "Dark Side" back in the seventies and then later got themselves a pseudoscience degree at some private college, and in spite of the fact that they never really grew up, is compelled to expound and resolve any and all issues surrounding the inexplicabilities of all that ridiculous dark matter nonsense by extending theory upon theory to explain and justify it. These guys are literally going out on a limb here, in my opinion.

surrounding only Spiral Galaxies, this according to Zwicky the godfather of DM

Spouting nonsense as always. Zwicky's pioneering work on dark matter was in clusters, not spiral galaxies. Clusters are in fact dominated by elliptical. He didn't use the rotation of spirals. He also made no claims about it's distribution either, all he could see is that according to standard light to mass ratios clusters couldn't be in equilibrium.

Once you create imaginary matter to explain observational anomalies, it is easy to imagine multiple inflations or anything else you may need to normalize your models

Easily the best, most sensible comment about this article. It can't be overstated

For the uneducated absolutely right !

Those that are simplistic, naive & cannot do Algebra it IS an imaginary only in an equation & as any intelligent person *knows* full well (who's done math) an 'unknown' in equations represents a quantity ie with dimension - whether Kg, Meters, Newtons etc

Old_C_Code stumbles

Dark matter was originally proposed to be actual matter that could not be seen/reflected, not fantasy matter

Similar problem discussed at http://www.math.c...?p=5327, QFT predicts a huge vacuum energy, whereas measurements show that it is small. So with gravity we may be looking more at QFT (quantum field theory, I suppose).

Because we're not measuring the aggregate, only a small spot in space?Gravity as a field? Good.

Anyhow the vacuum pressure can be shown with Casimir force - and that isn't in the same ballpark as gravity magnitude-wise.

Not really. The vacuum energy permeates the plates. The vacuum energy displaced by the atomic matter in the plates is really almost immeasureable. For example the hydrogen atom is 4x10^-13 full, the rest being empty space per http://education....ce.html. Should have thought that one out before. Never was the smartest kid in class. And my classes weren't that big either.

There is no such thing as empty space. The space is geometric object. Physicists are interested of physical objects such as vacuum of space. Thing about electromagnetism. Where is stored electromagnetic energy of the coil before to release it and induce voltage in the conductor?

Yes it's filled with some sort of energy at least in our neck of the woods. Anyway the Casimer force is probably the force of gravity between the plates. But don't try doubling the weight of the plates and think you'll get twice the force because of the 1/r^2 term in the gravitational field. Only the atoms near the inner surfaces will contribute very much to the gravitational force.

There is no such thing as empty space. The space is geometric object. Physicists are interested of physical objects such as vacuum of space. Thing about electromagnetism Where is stored electromagnetic energy of the coil before to release it and induce voltage in the conductor?

Previously you viko_mx have claimed "I know Physics well", so obviously you know very little at all, go learn electrical fundamentals about reactances from Inductance to Capacitive etc

Heard of Calculus ?Essential to understand almost any basic Physics & especially so as all gods are very bad communicators - exactly as if they don't exist, ie ONLY mere claim !

Please go away viko_mx, you are embarrassing, this is not midlde school, you get caught out so very often making things up "false witness" & lying, you don't know "Physics Well" so stop making such stupid unsupportable claims !

Do you bother to understand what you quote? My hobby is electronics and I know how works coils, capacitors or transistors.Where is stored electromagnetic energy of the coil before to be induced electromotive force in the conductor? Where are distributed magnetic field lines? In nothingness - in geometric space? This does not work. Does the coils works in the vacuum of space? Are you aware of the process of induction? Digging wikipedia does not help if you do not bother to understand what you read.

If we pump in more mass into a black hole the Schwarzschild radius simply becomes bigger suggesting the unit amount of energy within the black hole remains

This is tricky stuff because space is not flat within a black hole. So talking of the amount of space inside it isn't as straightforward a taking the Schwarzschild radius cubed and multiplying by 4Pi/3

The definition of a space relies on the definition of a length. And our definition of a length is dependent on the definition of time (because the only constant ruler we have is the speed of light). However, inside the event horizon the length between a point 'further in' towards a point 'further out' is inifinite because light would never reach it (take an infinite amount of time)

Note the reverse (from a point 'further out' to one 'further in') does not hold true. That length is finite.So a black hole is 'larger on the inside'. Speaking of density metrics becomes iffy.

I'd make it a point to never vote Muttering Mike anything less than a 5 Star, this so as to never dilute the voting selector for those who come to this site seeking only to read 5 Star rated Comments. It is just so much fun putting Muttering Mike's Funny Farm Science before the eyeballs of naive starry eyed readers, this so they can see for themselves the plethora of Funny Farm Science this site attracts, you know, like when Docile & Stumpy used to be here.

There is no such thing as empty space. The space is geometric object. Physicists are interested of physical objects such as vacuum of space. Thing about electromagnetism. Where is stored electromagnetic energy of the coil before to release it and induce voltage in the conductor?

Where is stored electromagnetic energy of the coil before to be induced electromotive force in the conductor? Where are distributed magnetic field lines? In nothingness - in geometric space? This does not work. Does the coils works in the vacuum of space? Are you aware of the process of induction?

Magnetic Field "lines" are just an artifact of the way baryonic material reacts to field variations.Coils need power supplied TO them before they produce electromagnetic field. And then, it's not "stored", it just sits there waiting for a "conductor" to "induct" it too. It's "wasted", for lack of better term..Sheesh, Viko... I'm just an artist and even I know that, fer crissake...

I'd make it a point to never vote Muttering Mike anything less than a 5 Star, this so as to never dilute the voting selector for those who come to this site seeking only to read 5 Star rated Comments. It is just so much fun putting Muttering Mike's Funny Farm Science before the eyeballs of naive starry eyed readers, this so they can see for themselves the plethora of Funny Farm Science this site attracts, you know, like when Docile & Stumpy used to be here.

I'd make it a point to never vote Muttering Mike anything less than a 5 Star, this so as to never dilute the voting selector for those who come to this site seeking only to read 5 Star rated Comments. It is just so much fun putting Muttering Mike's Funny Farm Science before the eyeballs of naive starry eyed readers, this so they can see for themselves the plethora of Funny Farm Science this site attracts, you know, like when Docile & Stumpy used to be here.

You do realize Promile and Docile are both Zeph, right?

.............Yepo, WG, isn't it nice having Axemaster's nemesis back? It'll be great fun again to see if the ol' MIT axe wielder is as proficient with that club as he is teaching his glorified kinematics course. This is just gonna to be a pile of entertainment to sit back & watch unfold.

Let me guess. The Holy Matrix is at it again !Who are the 5 readers that gave you 5 stars?Your 5 sockpuppets?5 disciples ?

Ya know, this gives me some thoughts for contemplation.

The new Docile is about to begin competing with Axemaster for clever insight(s) about DM. Axo will be in no frame of mind to put up with someone stealing his thunder, so he will make another move to get him banned by using the "sock puppet" censorship technique. I was po'd when Axo did not include me in the old Docile sockpuppet list, I guess because I only gave him 5's only 2 or 3 times.

So what I'm thinking, if I start giving Muttering Mike & the new Docile unbroken repertoires of 5's, no matter how disconnected & convoluted their Funny Farm Science becomes, then maybe I can be Axo's fallback sockpuppet of an excuse for not only censoring the New Docile but also the old Muttering Mike?

Maybe, how about focusing & be relevant articulating well your claim & with keen Science communication re your idle/arbitrary view "fantasy matter", can you do that, even a little, show us you have some intelligent basis to your vague pub talk one liners ?

Old_C_Code have you ever looked at the source of that cliche "Modesty is proportional to accomplishment", re context here in detail ?

How is asking a question about a claim a reflection on modesty ? Does that betray you are unable to explain why you imagine a fantasy, not an issue of Algebra ?

ie When you state "Dark matter was originally proposed to be actual matter that could not be seen/reflected, not fantasy matter" do you realise how facile & irrelevant you appear

Obviously not re modesty, where is your accomplishment to articulate claims well please ?

https://en.wikipe..._McGaugh"McGaugh found surprising support for the Modified Newtonian dynamics proposed by Mordehai Milgrom as an alternative to Dark matter in his work on Low Surface Brightness Galaxies. This has proven to be very controversial since it implies the non-existence of the non-baryonic dark matter that is central to physical cosmology. Nevertheless, his predictions for the mass distribution of the Milky Way and the velocity dispersions of the dwarf Spheroidal satellites of the Andromeda spiral galaxy have largely been confirmed by subsequent observations."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacy_McGaugh"McGaugh found surprising support for the Modified Newtonian dynamics proposed by Mordehai Milgrom as an alternative to Dark matter in his work on Low Surface Brightness Galaxies. This has proven to be very controversial since it implies the non-existence of the non-baryonic dark matter that is central to physical cosmology. Nevertheless, his predictions for the mass distribution of the Milky Way and the velocity dispersions of the dwarf Spheroidal satellites of the Andromeda spiral galaxy have largely been confirmed by subsequent observations."

But:"MOND has successfully predicted a variety of galactic phenomena that are difficult to understand from a dark matter perspective.[2] However, MOND and its generalisations do not adequately account for observed properties of galaxy clusters, and no satisfactory cosmological model has been constructed from the theory."https://en.wikipe...dynamics

"Magnetic Field "lines" are just an artifact of the way baryonic material reacts to field variations."

Artifacts exist only in human made imperfect mathematical theories. In the real physical world such things does not exist. How are arranged the iron filings in a magnetic field? What is their obtained order? Artifact?

"Coils need power supplied TO them before they produce electromagnetic field. And then, it's not "stored", >it just sits there waiting for< a "conductor" to "induct" it too. It's "wasted", for lack of better term.."

Do not you think that "its just sits there waiting for" sounds like stored? Where? In the structure of vacuum of space? What happens when the power applied on the coil is interrupted suddenly? I guess you heard about the conservation energy low?

Old_C_Code have you ever looked at the source of that cliche "Modesty is proportional to accomplishment", re context here in detail ?

That is my own observation, take your meds

Ah, so absolutely nothing useful to readers, no Science communication, nothing on topic at all re Gravity, Eg how about MOND ?

What about my question "Still is, what idiot now says it *has* to be a fantasy ?".

Write how YOU came to conclusion dark matter's fantasy or are you simply parroting propaganda, not able to offer useful dialectic or Algebra or a Position ?

@Benni/bschottMy comment re magnetism in response to viko_mx - the religious zealot who claims "I know Physics well", its obviously pointless engaging him when he often brings back to his Creator that can't ever communicate well

If you guys had read my posts re Magnetism you would see I take the same position as Feynman, as no-one actually knows, so u tell us your Position(s) ?

Artifacts exist only in human made imperfect mathematical theories. In the real physical world such things does not exist. How are arranged the iron filings in a magnetic field? What is their obtained order? Artifact?

iron filings predominantly arrange in "field lines" due to magnetic properties of iron.

"Coils need power supplied TO them before they produce electromagnetic field. And then, it's not "stored", >it just sits there waiting for< a "conductor" to "induct" it too. It's "wasted", for lack of better term.."

Do not you think that "its just sits there waiting for" sounds like stored?

Nope - exists until -

What happens when the power applied on the coil is interrupted suddenly?

iron filings predominantly arrange in "field lines" due to magnetic properties of iron

Indeed they do & with gaps between the iron illustrating the iron pulls the field towards it as it is ferromagnetic ie. The iron affects & interacts with the overall field, so before the filings are added the field is 'smooth', once the filings are added the field has a ripple distribution as iron pulls etc...

Proof easy to procure via non ferromagnetic field probe - actually a probe which has as negligible effective magnetic properties as possible, whether; ferro, dia, para, anti-ferro etc such that it does not influence the field distribution in any significant way - if at all possible, some info here:-http://www.emcesd...99-w.pdfKey issue is of course to measure the vector too, with minimal field disturbancehttp://www.vernie.../mg-bta/

iirc Gauss observed this too as fields couple so very easily & all the time...

Indeed they do & with gaps between the iron illustrating the iron pulls the field towards it as it is ferromagnetic ie. The iron affects & interacts with the overall field, so before the filings are added the field is 'smooth', once the filings are added the field has a ripple distribution as iron pulls etc...

I dunno, Mike. The field strength itself weakens (smoothly) the farther from the magnet source you get. The iron filings arrange themselves due to their own magnetic interaction (magnetism having been induced in each of them due to the field). Of course, without the proper equip to test this and actually know - I could be wrong...:-) And, thanks for the constructive input. It helps me sort out stuff...:-)

I dunno, Mike. The field strength itself weakens (smoothly) the farther from the magnet source..

Correct, case A

Whydening Gyre added

The iron filings arrange themselves due to their own magnetic interaction (magnetism having been induced in each of them due to the field)

Correct & in so doing filings reduce field strength outside (comparison to case A) in close proximity, from initially smooth field end up with reduced field not smooth...

Ahhh.... I get it... Thanks. I was kinda thinking the field strength stayed the same, but the filings (because of their proximity) generated their own stronger field due to their own, newly found, magnetism...

.. but the filings (because of their proximity) generated their own stronger field due to their own, newly found, magnetism...

Hmm, close but not quite, bear in mind the iron filings are construed to be non-magnetised first before being applied, ie Non polarised with no initial field of their own - they are often so called 'soft iron' meaning they don't impose their own field but, rather are more receptive to externally imposed fields. So the field from the magnet tends to congregate withing the added iron fillings

So, given they start out neutral as such immediately before being jostled onto the paper they don't add or subtract from the existing field - they instead coalesce the existing magnet's field from the bar magnet as the field lines prefer to pass through the iron fillings instead of the free space around them (where possible), the result is the bits of iron filings only *then* become (polarised) domains by themselves & thus line up...

"iron filings predominantly arrange in "field lines" due to magnetic properties of iron."

No. This arrangement depends only on the distribution of the magnetic field in the structure of the vacuum of space rather than the source of the magnetic field.

"Coils need power supplied TO them before they produce electromagnetic field. And then, it's not "stored", >it just sits there waiting for< a "conductor" to "induct" it too. It's "wasted", for lack of better term.."

[qNo. This arrangement depends only on the distribution of the magnetic field in the structure of the vacuum of space rather than the source of the magnetic field. No, Viko. Think about what Mike just said. The field is smooth "density" gradient prior to intro of filings(a magnetic conductor), only developing the layered characteristics after said interactive introduction.

- "when it stops existing."

Before to stop existing what happen? How it works L-C oscillators?

The only oscillation comes from turning it on and off. I'm talking about the field, itself (in a vacuum). Other than that, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

The action at distance remains unsolved problem in physics. It's not just about magnetic field, but about gravity and Coulomb force as well. If the force between electron and protons would propagate with speed of light, then the electron would collapse into atom nuclei fast. In accordance with it was observed, that the charge of electron http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.2913 than the electron itself, actually with superluminal speed. Which is something, the Maxwell equations or special relativity cannot predict neither describe.

Which would mean that a "field" (or information, if you will) was already there when an atom encountered it. The "charge" of every single quantified single piece of space (big or small) is the aggregate charge of all things within it (who knows, it could even be more than). It is contiguous with all the other quantified spaces around it and so on. All constantly reacting to fluctuational input. Thus making anything and everything a "quantum".

So an inductor (L), even wire whether coiled or not, ideally has nil resistance (R) & nil capacitance (C) but, practically has non-zero series resistance & small distributed capacitances across each winding, its simplest yet good match to determine reactances, slightly more complex asymptotic corrections add small Rs in series & parallel with each C & permutations thereof. Ideal LC osc has no R's = no losses

The "L-C Oscillator" inductor connected to a capacitor. If ideal components & capacitor is first given a charge then connecting them will result in indefinite oscillation dependent upon the magnitude of capacitance (Farads) & Inductor (Henrys)

ie Charge from capacitor creates current in inductor which reverses voltage on the capacitor according to these fundamental principles (ideal non-resistive)

Even in the ideal case where L & C have no resistive components the oscillation is subject to attentuation as charge on the capacitor requires its electric field impinge on space, likewise current through inductor requires its magnetic field impinges on space

For viko_mx , claims "I know Physics well" can take it away & Benni can solve the circuit's differential equation

E-mail the story

New theory of secondary inflation expands options for avoiding an excess of dark matter

Note

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose.
The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Your message

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox.
You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

Your Privacy

This site uses cookies to assist with navigation, analyse your use of our services, and provide content from third parties.
By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Privacy Policy
and Terms of Use.